Joseph, sold by two different groups (Midianites and Ishmaelites), seems to have been bought by two different men (Potiphar, captain of the guard, and an unnamed Egyptian man), leading to two discrete storylines, each of which place Joseph in a different position when he meets the cupbearer and the baker.

Dr. Rabbi Zev Farber

Illustration from a Bible card published by the Providence Lithograph Company 1907

Who Bought Joseph?

The problem of the double sale of Joseph is well-known, as is the source critical solution.[1] In this piece I wish to unravel a problem that occurs later in the story, but to do so, we must begin with the identity of the Egyptian man who bought Joseph

Sold by Midianites to Potiphar (E version)
In one version of the disappearance of Joseph story, Reuben convinces his brothers not to kill him but to throw him into a pit. While the brothers sit down to eat, a group of Midianites notice him and remove him from the pit. They then bring Joseph to Egypt and sell him to Potiphar, captain of the guard:

37:36 And the [Midianites][2] sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, one of Pharaoh’s officials, the captain of the guard.[3]

This version is generally identified as being part of the E text.

Sold by Ishmaelites to (Potiphar) an Egyptian Man (J Version)
In the other version of Joseph’s disappearance, the brothers take Joseph and tear off his tunic. Seeing a band of Ishmaelites passing by, Judah convinces his brothers not to kill Joseph but to sell him to the Ishmaelites. They do so, and the Ishmaelites bring Joseph to Egypt and sell him there to Potiphar, again identified as the captain of the guard, though here he is in addition called “an Egyptian man.”

39:1 Now Joseph was taken down to Egypt, and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, the captain of the guard, an Egyptian man bought him from the Ishmaelites who had brought him down there.

This version of the sale, and what follows, is generally identified as the J story.

Potiphar or an Egyptian Man

As already noted by traditional exegetes, the way verse 39:1 refers to the man who purchased Joseph—“Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, the captain of the guards, an Egyptian man”—seems like overkill, especially following 37:36. Particularly odd is the note that he was “an Egyptian man”—would we expect anything else from an officer of Pharaoh and a captain of the guards?

Traditional Explanations
Midrash Aggada translates the word מצרי (Egyptian) as “sneaky (ערום),” thus avoiding the superfluity problem.[4] R. Samson Raphael Hirsch translates the term literally, but suggests that it is meant both to remind the reader of the contrast between the craven Egyptians and the pious Joseph as well as to emphasize how impressive a foreign slave like Joseph must have been to receive such a promotion in a foreign land.[5]

A Redactional Gloss Both of these commentators realize that “an Egyptian man” is out of place, and assume that it functions as a gloss on “Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guards.” It is more likely, however, that in the original J text, the Ishmaelites sell Joseph to an unnamed Egyptian man, who employs, becomes impressed with, and promotes Joseph to the administrator of his household. A later redactor, working with the combined version of the Joseph story, added the phrase “Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guards” to the verse, to make the two sales—that of the Midianites and that of the Ishmaelites—appear to be one. The redactional link is indented and italicized below:

an Egyptian man bought him from the Ishmaelites who had brought him down there.[6]

Joseph’s Unnamed Egyptian Master (J Story)
That the name Potiphar is a redactional gloss in 39:1 is substantiated by the fact that in the rest of the chapter the man is always referred to without a name, either as “an Egyptian” or “his (=Joseph’s) master.”

39:1 Now Joseph was taken down to Egypt, and… an Egyptian bought him from the Ishmaelites who had brought him down there. 39:2 Yhwh was with Joseph, and he became a successful man; he was in the house of his Egyptian master. 39:3His master saw that Yhwh was with him, and that Yhwh caused all that he did to prosper in his hands. 39:4 So Joseph found favor in his sight and attended him; he made him overseer of his house and put him in charge of all that he had. 39:5 From the time that he made him overseer in his house and over all that he had, Yhwh blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake….

The same holds true for every mention of the master’s wife, who—as Baruch Schwartz astutely noted in a Society of Biblical Literature talk—is never referred to as “Potiphar’s wife” in the Bible.

Joseph Jailed by his Master and
Given over to the Chief Jailor (J Story)

Thanks to Yhwh’s assistance, Joseph is exceedingly successful in his master’s house. But things take a turn for the worse after Joseph refuses the advances of his master’s wife and finds himself accused of sexual assault.

39:20 And Joseph’s master took him and put him into the prison, the place where the king’s prisoners were confined; he remained there in prison. 39:21 But Yhwh was with Joseph and showed him steadfast love; he gave him favor in the sight of the chief jailer. 39:22 The chief jailer committed to Joseph’s care all the prisoners who were in the prison, and whatever was done there, he was the one who did it. 39:23 The chief jailer paid no heed to anything that was in Joseph’s care, because Yhwh was with him; and whatever he did, Yhwh made it prosper.

Accepting his wife’s claim as true, Joseph’s master has Joseph imprisoned, away in a prison controlled by a chief jailor (not Joseph’s master). As Joseph moves up the ladder in the prison, the way he did as the slave of his previous master, he finds favor in the eyes of the chief jailer, who promotes him and leaves the running of the prison in his hands.

The Continuation of the Potiphar Story (E Story):
Just a Slave

The continuation of the E story, which features Potiphar, is in chapter 40:[7]

37:36 And the Midianites sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, one of Pharaoh’s officials, the captain of the guard. //40:1 Some time after this, the cupbearer of the king of Egypt and his baker offended their lord the king of Egypt. 40:2 Pharaoh was angry with his two officers, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker, 40:3 and he put them in custody in the house of the captain of the guard, in the prison, the place where Joseph was confined. 40:4The captain of the guard charged Joseph with them, and he waited on them; and they continued for some time in custody.

Here Joseph is in the house of the captain of the guard again. And yet, the details in this paragraph are hard to square with each other.

Custody or Prison – The two men are put in “custody (משמר)” in the house of the captain of the guard, and in “prison (סהר)” where Joseph is locked up.[8]

Absence of the Chief Jailor – The captain of the guard puts Joseph in charge of the men. But if the men are in jail, shouldn’t the chief jailor be in charge of them (as he is of Joseph at the end of chapter 39)?

Double Opening – The opening of the story reads awkwardly and seems to contain a doublet. In verse 1, the cupbearer (משקה) and the baker (אופה)—the word “chief (שר)” does not appear—sin (חטאו) against “the king of Egypt (מלך מצרים).” Then, in verse 2, we are told that Pharaoh became angry (קצף) at his two eunichs (סריסיו), the chief cupbearer (שר המשקים) and the chief baker (שר האופים).

Ibn Ezra’s Suggestion To solve some of the tension, ibn Ezra (40:4) suggests that the jail was inside the captain of the guard’s house, and that Potiphar, the captain of the guard, had direct control over the goings on in this jail.[9] This suggestion, however, seems to fly in the face of the simple reading of the verses in chapter 39 which imply that the jail was under someone else’s command. It also contradicts the simple meaning of the opening verses of chapter 40, which imply that Potiphar, the captain of the guard, has direct control over where Joseph is and seems to be unaware of any such person as the chief jailor. Finally, his suggestion does not explain the double opening.

Why the Chief Baker and Butler Dream Story is Perplexing These three problems point to the possibility that the text contains more than one version of the story.

40:1 Some time after this, the cupbearer of the king of Egypt and his baker offended their lord the king of Egypt.

40:2 Pharaoh was angry with his two officers, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker, 40:3and he put them in custody in the house of the captain of the guard,

in the prison, the place where
Joseph was confined.

40:4 The captain of the guard charged Joseph with them, and he waited on them; and they continued for some time in custody.

In the indented version, the cupbearer (משקה) and the baker (אופה) sin against the king of Egypt (מלך מצרים), who sends them to prison, where they happen to meet Joseph, also a captive there. This is the J story, the remainder of which appears to be lost until after Joseph’s appointment as vizier.[10]

In the other version, Pharaoh becomes angry with his chief cupbearer and chief baker, and sends them into custody at the home of the captain of the guards, where Joseph happens to be a slave. In this version, Joseph was never promoted, was never accused of assaulting his master’s wife, and is not a prisoner. He is simply a slave in the household of Potiphar, captain of the guards, and happens to have the power of interpreting dreams. This is the E story.[11]

Assuming the phrase ויתן אתם is an example of a phrase that existed in both sources but used only once in the composite text,[12] the two sources would have read as follows:

Joseph in Prison (J)

Joseph as a Servant in Potiphar’s House (E)

Some time after this, the cupbearer of the king of Egypt and his baker offended their lord the king of Egypt, [and he put them] in the prison, the place where Joseph was confined.

Pharaoh became angry with his two officers, the chief cupbearer and the chief baker, and he put them in custody in the house of the captain of the guard. The captain of the guard charged Joseph with them, and he waited on them; and they continued for some time in custody.

The E story continues with Joseph interpreting the two men’s dreams,[13] proving he has this gift, and asking the chief cupbearer, who will be restored to his position in the palace, to bring his name up to Pharaoh (40:14-15). Such a request only makes sense for an untainted slave wishing for freedom; it would be more than a little presumptuous of a prisoner accused of attempting to rape his master’s wife (for more on this verse, see the appendix). Nevertheless, the chief cupbearer forgets about Joseph (40:23) until the episode of Pharaoh’s dreams two years later in Parashat Mikketz.

The Chief Cupbearer’s Description of Joseph:
A Slave

Pharaoh has a set of dreams that awaken him in a panic. In the morning, he asks his advisors to tell him the meaning of the dreams but to no avail. At this point, his chief cupbearer makes a confession:

41:9 Then the chief cupbearer said to Pharaoh, “I remember my faults today. 41:10 Once Pharaoh was angry with his servants, and put me and the chief baker in custody in the house of the captain of the guard. 41:11 We dreamed on the same night, he and I, each having a dream with its own meaning. 41:12 A young Hebrew was there with us, a servant of the captain of the guard. When we told him, he interpreted our dreams to us, giving an interpretation to each according to his dream. 41:13 As he interpreted to us, so it turned out; I was restored to my office, and he (=the baker) was hanged.”

The chief cupbearer describes Joseph as a young Hebrew, and a servant of the captain of the guard. The chief cupbearer and the chief baker were in custody (משמר) in the captain of the guard’s house. We do not hear about a chief jailer, or the word prison (סהר). We further do not hear anything about Joseph being a prisoner or working for the chief jailer, just his position as a servant to the captain of the guard. This has all the telltale signs of the E story.

Here, Pharaoh (not “the king of Egypt”) was angry with his servants, the chief cupbearer and chief baker, and sent them into the custody (not the jail) of Potiphar the captain of the guards, where Joseph happened to have been a slave (not a prisoner). As they get to know the poor lad who brings them their food, he offers to interpret their dreams and they learn that he has this ability.

In this version, Joseph was never actually sold by his brothers, but was “stolen” from his homeland, after his brothers left him to die in a pit, and wound up a lowly slave in an important house. This version knows nothing about a thwarted affair with his master’s wife and nothing about a prison, and nothing about Yhwh making Joseph favorable in the eyes of his masters. In this version, God’s intervention is merely God’s granting of Joseph the uncanny ability to accurately interpret prophetic dreams. Nevertheless, this proves sufficient for Joseph who, making use of this skill, will rise to the position of Pharaoh’s second in command during Egypt’s time of crisis.

___________________

– Appendix –
The Pit Problem

Joseph is twice described as being in “the pit (בור).” This raises a significant problem, since these verses are in the E version, but the notion that Joseph was in trouble characterizes the J story.

40:14 But remember me when it is well with you; please do me the kindness to make mention of me to Pharaoh, and so get me out of this place.

40:15 For in fact I was stolen out of the land of the Hebrews; and here also I have done nothing that they should have put me into the dungeon. (NRSV)

Joseph begins by asking to be removed from this “house,” namely Potiphar’s house; this fits well with the E story. Yet, Joseph ends with a defensive claim, stating that even here, in Egypt, he has done “nothing” to deserve being placed in this “pit.” This does not fit well with the E story, since in this version he is not in a prison and no one ever accused him of doing anything wrong.

The pit theme returns after the chief cupbearer does speak with Pharaoh, two years later, and Pharaoh wishes to ask Joseph to interpret his dream.

41:14 Then Pharaoh sent for Joseph, and he was hurriedly brought out of the dungeon. He shaved himself and changed his clothes, and he came in before Pharaoh.

Again, this appears to be part of the E story, since it follows the chief cupbearer’s confession and refers to Egypt’s king as Pharaoh. And yet, it assumes that Joseph was in a pit and needs to be cleaned up before he can be brought before Pharaoh.

A number of possible explanations may resolve this problem.

The pit theme is part of the lost J text, and was included as part of the combined text by the redactor.

The pit theme is redactional, trying to tie the J story, most of which was cut, into the E story.

Both of these suggestions suffer from the same problem. If this was cut from J or was a redactor’s attempt to mimic J, why not use the same term J uses throughout, i.e., “prison (בית הסהר)?” Why use “pit”? It is possible that the redactor chose this term because earlier in the E story Joseph had been thrown into a pit by his brothers, but perhaps this is too clever.

The pit is part of yet another source, perhaps the P source, which has been preserved here in only a handful of fragments.

This seems possible but, since there is nothing Priestly about it per se, and we don’t even know what P’s storyline was for this section (if it had such a section), the possibility remains so speculative that is hard to say anything more about it.[14]

In short, every solution brings with it its own problems. Perhaps further scholarly discussions and analysis will help elucidate this problem.

___________________

Rabbi Dr. Zev Farber is a fellow at Project TABS – TheTorah.com. He holds an M.A. from Hebrew University in Jewish History (biblical period) and a Ph.D. from Emory University in Jewish Religious Cultures. In addition to academic training, Zev holds ordination (yoreh yoreh) and advanced ordination (yadin yadin) from Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT) Rabbinical School. Zev’s edited volumes on brain death and organ donation areforthcoming from Koren and his book on Joshua in reception history is forthcoming in De Gruyter’s BZAW series.

12/08/2015

[1] See Ben Sandler’s TABS essay, “Encountering the Documentary Hypothesis in the Joseph Story,” and the TABS blog post, “The First Source Critical Bar Mitzvah Speech.” For more detailed treatments, see Baruch Schwartz, “How the Compiler of the Pentateuch Worked: The Composition of Genesis 37,” in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (eds. Craig A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr, and David L. Petersen; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 263-278, and Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 1-12, 34-44.

[2] In fact, the Masoretic text reads Medanites, but this is probably just a scribal error, since Midianite and Medanite are spelled almost exactly the same, and the two groups are related. Both the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch read “Midianite.”

[6] Joel Baden also notes this phrase as a redactional insertion, one of “those places where the compiler has inserted a word or phrase into one source to correct a glaring inconsistency with another.” See, Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch:Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), ch. 6, loc. 4683 (Kindle version).

[7] This is also the way Richard Elliot Friedman divides the text in his The Bible with Sources Revealed (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2003), ad loc.

[8] The difference between these two institutions seems to relate to length of time. Custody is a very temporary situation, while the king decides what is to be done with the prisoners. Prison, especially one that has a “chief jailor” implies a longer stay. The former existed even in ancient Israel and Judah (see 1 Kings 2:27, Jer 37:15). The latter did not exist in ancient Israel, but may have existed in ancient Egypt. Nevertheless, the Egyptian texts may just be describing situations of long-term forced labor as a punishment. See discussion in Richard Elliott Friedman and Shawna Dolansky, The Bible Now (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 140-142.

[9] ולפי דעתי שבית הסהר היה בבית שר הטבחים, ושם היה יוסף

[10] Richard Elliott Friedman, for instance, has the J story pick up again with the appearance of the brothers in Egypt in chapter 42. How Joseph made it out of prison and into a position of power in Egypt in the J account is lost (unless more J verses are hidden in chs. 40 and 41).

[11] Taking into consideration terminology and narrative flow, the remainder of ch. 40 appears to be the E story, with one notable redaction.

40:5 One night they both dreamed, each his own dream, and each dream with its own meaning — the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were confined in the prison.

Although the story begins with E’s dream account, the end of the verse describes the men as being in prison, the offended party is “King of Egypt” and the men’s titles are merely “cupbearer” and “baker” (not chiefs). Although we don’t know what happens next in this version—unless there are more verses from this version that I have failed to uncover—it seems that the Joseph’s interaction with these two men play a part in it.

Another point, in keeping with the method of noting changes in name, it is likely, that that 41:46a, which refers to Joseph as being 30 years old (recording exact dates and ages is a characteristic of the Priestly text) and calls Pharaoh “Pharaoh, King of Egypt” is a P verse, since this is how the Priestly text refers to Pharaoh in Exodus. Richard Elliott Friedman makes this claim as well; see Richard Elliott Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2003), 101.

[12] The division of sources is difficult to see because the main verb, in which Pharaoh or the King of Egypt, sends the two men two prison (or custody), is doing double duty. This is a common problem in spliced stories, especially in death scenes (how many times can a character die?) In cases where the redactor is splicing two stories with very similar storylines, he is sometimes forced to cut a phrase which would make the story unreadable if included. Joel Baden notes this phenomenon as well as, referring to it as, “places where two sources used the same phrase and the compiler set it down only once.” See, Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch:Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), ch. 6, loc. 4683 (Kindle version). In our case, the phrase ויתן אתם was included from one of the sources, and it or some equivalent locution was dropped from the other. For more on this phenomenon, see Dudu Cohen’s methodological note in fn 10 of his TABS essay, “Finding the Source of Water in Marah.”In this piece, Cohen argues that the phrase “and they came to Marah” (Exod 15:23) is an example of such a double duty phrase. In his TABS essay,“The Unknown yet Known Place of Moses’ Burial,” he makes the same claim for “and Moses died” in Deut 34.

[13] The E source has a strong affinity for dream stories. In addition to this story and the account of Pharaoh’s dreams, E also records Abimelech’s dream (Gen 20:6-7), in which God tells him that Sarah is really Abraham’s sister, Jacob’s dream of the angels going up and down a ladder in Beit-El (Gen 28:11b-12), and Jacob’s dream of the an angel showing him speckled sheep and goats mating (Gen 31:10-13).

[14] Another theoretical possibility would be that “pit” is figurative; Joseph simply hates being a slave in Potiphar’s house. This approach is very difficult to accept. Joseph states defensively that “even here I did nothing,” meaning that his condition implies the opposite, that people believe he did something wrong. But there is nothing in the E text to imply that he was in trouble with his master. Moreover, if it is merely figurative, why does the 3rd person narrator use it in ch. 41 and why would Joseph need to be cleaned up?

Disclaimer

The views expressed in the articles/divrei Torah on this site are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of TABS.

TheTorah.com

A Historical and Contextual Approach TM

Mission

Project TABS (Torah And Biblical Scholarship) is an educational organization founded to energize the Jewish people by integrating the study of the Torah and other Jewish texts with the disciplines and findings of academic scholarship.